Peymani v Posh N Polished Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FCA 560
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
Lida Peymani was employed by Posh N Polished Pty Ltd as a salon manager and cosmetic tattooist from September 2024, on a salary of $81,000 plus commission. In May 2025, she sent her employer a written proposal requesting either a pay increase or a mutual separation. She alleges the director responded with verbal pressure and imposed commission reductions. A dispute followed, during which she says she was demoted, locked out of company systems, and ultimately asked not to return. She regards this as constructive dismissal. She initially filed with the Fair Work Commission, then brought a general protections court application in the Federal Court. Because she filed that court application outside the 14-day statutory time limit, she needed the court's permission to proceed. She appeared without a lawyer.
What was decided
Justice Bennett granted an extension of time to file the court application, but only for claims under sections 340 and 344 of the Fair Work Act 2009, covering adverse action and coercion. The extension was refused for claims under sections 343 and 351, which relate to misrepresentation and discrimination. The court found there was an adequate explanation for the delay, limited prejudice to the respondent, and sufficient merit in the section 340 and 344 claims to justify allowing them to proceed. The section 343 and 351 claims were assessed as not having enough merit to warrant the extension. Costs of the extension application were reserved, and the matter was referred to a Federal Court Registrar for a half-day mediation before any further steps.
What it means for employers
Employers in the beauty and personal services industry should be aware that disputes over commission reductions, role changes, and access to workplace systems can give rise to general protections claims even where no formal termination letter is issued. A constructive dismissal argument can succeed if an employee's resignation is linked to alleged adverse action. Courts may allow out-of-time applications where there is a reasonable explanation for the delay and some merit in the claim.
What it means for employees
Employees who believe they have been constructively dismissed have only 21 days to apply to the Fair Work Commission and then a further 14 days after receiving a certificate to file in court. Missing these deadlines means needing the court's permission to proceed, which is not guaranteed. This case shows courts will examine the merits of each individual claim separately when deciding whether to grant an extension, so some claims may be allowed while others are not.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca0560Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted by AI from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →